Semiotics for All Sociological Purposes
https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2023-2-8-17
About the Author
M. A. Erofeeva
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA); Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Erofeeva Maria Aleksandrovna — Candidate of Sociological Sciences, Researcher at the Center for Sociological Research ; Senior Lecturer of the Faculty of Social Sciences
Moscow
References
1. Authors’ team (2023). Forum 58: Linguistic Anthropology. Antropologicheskij forum, (48): 12-189. — in Russ.
2. Kolyadov D. (2019) A Review of Charles Goodwin. Co-Operative Action. NY: Cambridge University Press, 2018, 521 p. Antropologicheskij forum, (42): 231-241. — in Russ.
3. Latour B. (2006) We Have Never Been Modern, Saint Petersburg: EUSP Press. — in Russ.
4. Latour B. (2006) On interobjectivity. Sociology of Things, M.: «Territoriia budushchego» Press: 169-198. — in Russ.
5. Suchman L. (2019) Human-Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions, Moscow: Elementary Forms. — in Russ.
6. Scott J. (2005) Seeing Like a State. How Certain Schemes to Improve the Human Condition have Failed, Moscow: University Book. — in Russ.
7. Schutz A. (2004) Selected Papers: A world glowing with meaning, Moscow: ROSSPEN — in Russ.
8. Akrich M. (1992) The De-Scription of Technical Objects. Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building. Society Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: The MIT Press: 205-224.
9. Akrich M., Latour B. (1992) A Summary of a Convenient Vocabulary for the Semiotics of Human and Nonhuman Assemblies. Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building. Society Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: The MIT Press: 259-264.
10. Bourdieu P. (2010). Distinction, London: Routledge.
11. Garfinkel H., Lynch M. & Livingston E. (1981) The Work of a Discovering Science Construed with Materials from the Optically Discovered Pulsar. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(2), 131-158.
12. Goodwin C. (2018) Co-operative action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Høstaker R. (2005) Latour — Semiotics and Science Studies. Science Studies, 18(2): 5–25.
14. Latour B., Woolgar S. (1986). Laboratory life: the construction of scientific facts, Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press.
15. Latour B. (1992) Where Are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts. Wiebe E. Bijker and John Law (eds.) Shaping Technology/Building. Society Studies in Sociotechnical Change, Cambridge, Massachusetts; London: The MIT Press: 225-258.
16. Latour B. (2013) An Inquiry Into Modes of Existence, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
17. Latour B., Jensen P., Venturini T., Grauwin S., Boullier D. (2012). “The whole is always smaller than its parts”: a digital test of Gabriel Tardes’ monads. The British journal of sociology, 63(4): 590-615.
18. Law J. (2009) Actor-network theory and material semiotics. Bryan S. Turner (ed.) The New Blackwell Companion to Social Theory, Oxford: Blackwell.
19. Law J., Hassard J. (1999) Actor-network theory and after. John Law and John Hassard (eds.) The Sociological Review, 47(S1).
20. Millikan R.G. (2018) Biosemantics and Words that Don’t Represent. Theoria, 84 (3): 229-241.
21. Peirce Ch.S. (1931) Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, Vol. 5. Cambridge [Mass.]: Harvard University Press.
22. Seuren L.M., Wherton J., Greenhalgh T., Shaw S.E. (2021) Whose turn is it anyway? Latency and the organization of turn-taking in video-mediated interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 172: 63-78.
Review
For citations:
Erofeeva M.A. Semiotics for All Sociological Purposes. Sociology of Power. 2023;35(2):8-17. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2074-0492-2023-2-8-17
Views:
80
Email this article 